UPA Plan For India: Divide and Destroy
M V Kamath, Free Press Journal
January 17, 2008

[Economic justice cannot be delivered on communal grounds, such as providing reservations for certain religious communities. The government may mean well, but good intentions (themselves suspicious) have to be tempered with ground reality. Treat the poor as poor, not as Muslim or Hindu poor. Give to the Muslim poor whatever is given to the Hindu poor and vice versa. That, surely, will make for national integration. ]

India is a land of diverse castes, creeds, communities and religions living comfortably together in peace.

They number not in dozens or hundreds but in thousands. Hinduism is a mish mash of diverse elements, which are both its strength as well as weakness. The strength lies in its millenia-long acceptance of the truth that in conceptual freedom lies unity. Its weakness lies in the economically weak sections demanding special attention from the State.

This started even prior to independence, but has gained ground since then. The concept of Varna and dharna has over the decades undergone a perceptible change. Equality is demanded and the so-called 'higher castes' affected by a sense of guilt have tried to be accomodative. This has led to tensions as was witnessed, for example, when efforts were made for the implementation of the Mandal Commission Report.

Forgetting those momentous days, the present government is planning to allot 15% of the Plan Fund to Muslims on the theory that they are economically backward and need state assistance. It is first of all a fallacy to believe that all Muslims are economically backward. In the second place, is it necessary to classify people by religion or caste when assistance to the economically distressed is planned? It may be remembered that even Kaka Kalekar himself repudiated the Commission's work, especially in its acceptance of caste as the basis of backwardness
and recommendations for reservations in public service.

Some 2,399 communities had been listed as economically backward and there was no way in which justice could be impartially delivered to them, without inviting charges of favouritism. In September 1956, the Government of India itself recorded its dissatisfaction with the Commission's report, noting: "if the entire community, barring a few exceptions, has thus to be regarded as backward, the really needy would be swamped by the multitude and hardly receive any special attention..." If holes have been picked in the Caste-based report, how can one, even with the best of motives, distribute largesse on the basis of religion? In the first place, it will invite opposition on grounds that the government is playing the dangerous game of politicizing religion.

In the second place, a decision has to be taken as to who among the Muslims are truly backward, since within the Muslim community, despite Islamic tenets of equality, a caste system also prevails. This can only invite divisiveness among the Muslims themselves. What needs to be said is that the Centre's special 15-point programme for minorities in the 11th plan Draft paper could not only divide the Muslim Community, which is bad enough, but it could further worsen religious divides of which we have by now more than we can handle.

This is not secularism. It is blatant communalism of the worst kind. Besides, once fund allocation is decided on the basis of religion, what is there to prevent Christians and Sikhs, no matter how well off they are, from demanding equal attention? Economic justice cannot be delivered on communal grounds. That goes against the very concept of secularism. The government may mean well, but good intentions (themselves suspicious) have to be tempered with ground reality. What needs to be remembered is that the theory of reservations has long
ceased to be relevant and needs to be updated.

The news that Catholic schools across the country are planning to introduce upto 60 percent quotas for Catholic children as a Mumbai daily pointed out, signified "a very strange cross roads that our society has reached". As matters stand, minorities in the country are deepening the lines between themselves and "others". Is that a desirable development? But then, the Catholic church may claim that it has every right to take care of its own people, without government meddling. And it has a point. Nothing prevents the Muslim affluent from making efforts to raise the economic levels of fellow Muslims in dire straits.

And surely, they can further expect encouragement and even support from non-Muslim organisations by way of social camaraderie? Should the Muslim community insist on government support all the time? One of the dangers of the government trying to help raise the economic standards of Muslims lies in the possibility of many lower-castes opting for conversion to Islam to make gains otherwise denied them. Is that what the government has in mind? If the government, in its stupidity, embarks on its highly communal, not to say inflammatory policy of earmarking 15 percent of Plan funds for the upliftment of Muslim poor, it will not only pitch one Muslim sect against another, but rouse the anger of non-Muslim communities as well.

This is inviting large-scale disaster. Competitive communal demands can only lead to chaos and national division and should be strongly condemned. It is foolhardy, to say the least, to divide the poor and the needy along communal lines. The poor in the country, irrespective of their religion or caste, should be treated on equal grounds. If one caste or religion is given favoured treatment over the other castes or religions, we will only have a repetition of the Gujjar riots. And there will be no end to civil disturbances. Caste feelings are slowly dying and we must let them die a natural death. The reason why Gujjars demanded ST-status is simple, they want to enjoy whatever privileges the law provides the STs.

Apply that to the case of the Muslim underprivileged, and think of the possible consequences. They are too frightening even to ponder. Admittedly, there are many social imbalanced, but the way to overcome them is not communal favourtism, but to look at a holistic context of national development. Treat the poor as poor, not as Muslim or Hindu poor. Give to the Muslim poor whatever is given to the Hindu poor and vice versa. That, surely, will make for national integration.

The present policy of UPA government as enunciated by the Prime Minister is anti-national and damaging and it has been rightly opposed by the BJP. Wisely has Narendra Modi suggested that funds for various schemes of economic upliftment be allocated solely on the basis of socio-economic criteria, leaving the execution of the states. That is true secularism. More, it is the best way towards the creation of one India, one people. One expects better sense from a professed economist like Dr. Manmohan Singh. Look forward, Dr. Singh, not backwards.